Writing 10 years ago about the linguistics of email, Baron (1998) examines several challenges in determining its defining features. The author considers these challenges a direct reflection of the underlying difficulty in distinguishing written from spoken language. In other words, although the casual observer may like to categorize email use as either one or the other form of communication, such an identification presupposes that one can clearly determine what defines writing and speaking in the first place. Flexibility and fluidity are defining features of language in general, and this dynamic nature is clearly represented in the modalities we utilize for the expression of language as well.
In addition to this fundamental challenge, Baron also suggests that identifying the defining features of email is difficult because, as a relatively "new" form of communication, it is a system in flux. As she notes, "Email is more a moving linguistic target than a stable system..." (p. 144).
Still, Baron conducts a thorough comparison of email to written and spoken language on four dimensions including social dynamics, format, grammar, and style. In general, Baron concludes that email is most like writing in terms of social dynamics, most like speech in its lexical features and style, and reflects a mix of writing and speech in terms of format and its use of syntax (p. 155). I wonder whether users of email appreciate this multi-faceted structure, and suspect, instead, that its informal nature pairs it with speech in the minds of most people.
Two of the most interesting points raised by Baron seem to be issues that remain unresolved in current considerations of email. Specifically, Baron describes the papertrail paradox and the social relationship paradox. The papertrail paradox derives from the seeming one-to-one privacy and temporary of nature of email (evidenced by the informal content and structure of most email) versus the consequences of the "permanent record" that can be created by email storage and the ability of users to include undisclosed recipients to their messages. This seems to imply that most users ignore the writing-like consequences of email while focusing on its speech-like benefits.
Regarding the social relationship paradox, Baron points out that, "at the same time that email facilitates social exchange, it also raises a shield between participants that...both facilitates and protects against personal revelation" (p. 157). Several features of this paradox are intriguing. For example, as noted in the discussion by Ducheneaut & Watts (2005), email seems to be the "great leveler" in terms of institutional and organization communication, facilitating communication among participants that otherwise might not occur. In particular, the low salience of participant features fosters communication between people of different rank and status. Interestingly, Baron notes that this may be particularly true of female students communicating with male faculty (p. 147).
Still, Baron emphasizes social context and the characteristics of the users in determining the features of email. She argues that user choices, individual differences in message composition, and social decisions will play the biggest role in defining the modality.
Finally, Baron provided some interesting predictions regarding the future of email. First, she suggests that the use of emoticons would decrease as users adjusted to the lack of paralinguistic cues in email (much like we adjusted to not seeing the other person in telephone conversations). In addition, she suggests email could replace the telephone as the primary means of communication for one-to-one discussions (p. 165). Ten years into the future, do these predictions hold?
Baron, N.S. (1998). Letters by phone or speech by other means: The linguistics of email. Language & Communication, 18(2), 133-170.